Madras High Court
N.Shanthimadhuresan vs The Inspector Of Police on 3 September, 2020
Author: R.Tharani
Bench: R. Tharani
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020
N.Shanthimadhuresan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Inspector of Police,
City Crime Branch,
Madurai City,
Madurai District.
2.Sivarani
3.R.Patchaiammal
4.A.Sivagami
5.S.Govindammal
6.K.Logeswari .. Respondents
Prayer : This Revision Case is filed under Section 397 (1) and Section 401 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records and allow this Criminal Revision case and set
aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3204/2019 passed by the Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Madurai, dated 01.08.2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Samidurai
For R-1 : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/14
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020
ORDER
This revision has been filed to set aside the order, dated 01.08.2019, in Cr.M.P.No.3204/2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai,
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 02.10.1997, a Trust was created by name, Dhanam Trust, the head office is at Madurai, a self help group, by name, Kalanjiyam group and an agriculturists group jointly created a Trust, by name, Sugam Trust. 5 lakhs poor families from six States are the beneficiaries of the Trust. All the general body meetings used to be held only at Madurai. The Managing Trustee of Sugam Trust by name R.Rajapandian, is supervising Trust from Madurai Centre. Sugam hospital, Salem Branch is under the control of the Madurai registered office. The Audit report used to be filed only in Madurai.
3. From the year 2012 till today all the accounts of Sugam hospital, Salem branch, is maintained by one Sivarani at the Salem branch hospital. The administration of Sugam hospital, Salem, entrusted with one Logeswari. Logeswari and the above said Sivarani and the chiefs of three self help organisations by name Pachaiammal, Sivakami and Govindammal were entrusted with the Bank activities. Without the authority of Managing http://www.judis.nic.in 2/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 Trustees, the above persons swindled a sum of Rs.77,00,00/- of the trust amount. The employees of Pallavan Grama Bank and REPCO Bank also colluded in the cheating. On 27.02.2020, when Palaneeswari, Sivakumar and GaneshKumar were entrusted with the work of monthly audit went there, these people (viz., Logeswari, etc.,) scolded them in filthy language and they did not allow the authorised people to conduct the monthly audit. Again on 05.03.2019, Gurunathan, Anandakumar, and Logamadha and Palaneeswari, who were entrusted with the audit work, were scolded and threatened by the respondents 2 to 6. The respondents 2 to 6 are creating defamatory statement (mtJ}W) about the trust and they are trying to transfer huge amount from the Sugam Trust to a separate Trust created by them, by name ACE Foundation.
4. The first respondent therein / Sivarani sent a letter dated 14.03.2019, stating that she is withdrawing from the Post of Chairman of the Trust. She has already served two full terms, her term completed on 15.03.2019, another Trustees were appointed by the Trust and at present the first respondent therein / Sivarani is not a member of the Trust and she is suspended from the Trustees. Even then, she is disturbing the Administration of the Trust hospital, without the approval of the Trust Rs.75,00,000/- of Trust money was transferred to some other Trust. Hence, on 02.05.2019, a http://www.judis.nic.in 3/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 complaint was lodged before the Commissioner of Police, Madurai. That complaint was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai and no steps was taken by the Inspector of Police, CCB, on that complaint sofar. The respondents 2 to 6 are liable under Sections 420, 406, 468, 471, 477 (A) and 506(ii) I.P.C. A complaint was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and the complaint was referred to the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Madurai City / respondent police, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Instead of registering FIR, the respondent police sent a report to the Magistrate stating that they do not have a jurisdiction, to register the case.
5. The respondent police cannot fix the jurisdiction, even if, the respondent police is not having a jurisdiction, it is the duty of the respondent police to register an F.I.R., and then to transfer the same to the investigation Agency having a jurisdiction.
6. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent is as follows:
The petitioner preferred a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. When the same was forwarded to the first respondent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the first respondent filed a report http://www.judis.nic.in 4/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, on 17.07.2019, narrating that all the allegations and the business transactions took place only at Salem and the first respondent has no jurisdiction to register an F.I.R. and therefore, Cr.M.P.No.3204 of 2019 was closed by the Magistrate. There is no valid ground to set aside the order and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
7. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 2 to 6 is as follows:
After enquiry, the respondent police has filed a closure report on 17.07.2019. On 01.08.2019, the learned Magistrate has accepted the report and closed the petition filed under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate has not passed any final order, hence, the revision will not be applicable under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C . No cause of action arose in that area. Hence, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai has closed the complaint. The petitioner is having alternative remedy to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr,P.C and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
8. On the side of the respondents 2 to 6, it is stated that before filing the private complaint the petitioner must have approached the first respondent or the Superintendent of Police under Sections 153 and 154 Cr.P.C and the http://www.judis.nic.in 5/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 private complaint was not accompanied with an affidavit. It is further stated that already a case was registered before the Salem Police and investigation is pending and that the first respondent is not having jurisdiction to investigate this case. No cause of action arose in that area. Hence, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai has closed the complaint. The petitioner is having alternative remedy to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr,P.C and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
9. It is the duty of the complainant to approach the station house officer, under Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C., then only he can take action against the respondents 2 to 6. If no action has been taken, the petitioner can forward the complaint to the Superintendent of Police, under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner approached the Judicial Magistrate, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C, without following the procedure under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) Cr.P.C. It is the duty of the complainant to file an affidavit before the learned Judicial Magistrate. That procedure was not followed by the petitioner.
10. On 10.05.2019, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, Salem City and the same was forwarded to the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Salem, for investigation. On http://www.judis.nic.in 6/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 22.05.2019, the Inspector of Police, Salem issued summons to the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6. On 31.05.2019, the petitioner and the respondents 2 to 6 appeared before the police. The respondents 2 to 6 have produced documents to show that no amount of Sugam Trust was misappropriated. Suppressing all these facts, the petitioner has filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
11. The petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Magistrate in the capacity of the President of the Trust, but, she has failed to produce any Trust deed or authorisation permitting the petitioner to represent the Trust. No cause of action arose in that area. Hence, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai has closed the complaint. The petitioner is having alternative remedy to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr,P.C and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
12. On the side of the respondents 2 to 6, it is stated that no FIR was registered and there is no question of quashing of the F.I.R. The complainant has not fulfilled the procedure under Sections 153 and 154 Cr.P.C. All the documents relating to the Hospital and Bank details are at Salem. Already a case was registered in Salem and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Madurai, has http://www.judis.nic.in 7/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 no jurisdiction to pass an order, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The first respondent police is also having no jurisdiction to investigate the case.
13. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the respondents 2 to 6 swindle approximately Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs ony) from the Trust and a complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, when the complainant was forwarded to the first respondent, the first respondent instead of registering an F.I.R has filed a report stating that the first respondent is not having jurisdiction. Without registering an F.I.R., the first respondent cannot enquire and cannot decide the jurisdiction and the first respondent is not having locus standi to file a report instead of registering F.I.R. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that the Head office of the Trust is situated in Madurai, all General Body Meetings are held only in Madurai, the audit reports are filed in Madurai and hence, the first respondent is having jurisdiction to investigate the case. The respondent police cannot fix the jurisdiction, even if, the respondent police is not having a jurisdiction, it is the duty of the respondent police to register an F.I.R., and then to transfer the same to the investigation Agency having a jurisdiction.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020
14.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2041 of 2009 [Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar Vs. State of Gujarat and others], dated 06.11.2009, is cited, wherein, it is stated as follows:
" 4. The said report was rejected by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad, on the ground that it was not for the Investigating Agency to decide not to investigate a complaint forwarded to it under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. on the ground that the offence complained of was allegedly committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Investigating agency. The learned Magistrate by his order, dated 31.05.2006, directed the Investigating Agency to carry out a further investigation and report whether the alleged offence had been committed or not.
7. Accepting the views expressed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate that the investigating Agency was only required to state the outcome of the investigation pursuant to an order under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and that it had no authority to state which Court had jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged offence, the High Court by its impugned judgment, dated 15.03.2007, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, inter alia, on the following grounds:-
(i)That the Investigating Agency had travelled beyond its jurisdiction in expressing its views regarding the http://www.judis.nic.in 9/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 territorial jurisdiction in regard to a criminal offence which was for the Courts to decide
(ii)That the Station House Officer is vested with the authority to investigate any cognizable offence in respect of which an F.I.R is lodged.
(iii)The powers reserved to the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C could not be interfered with or curtailed on the ground that the Investigating Officer had no territorial jurisdiction over the investigation.
25. ... the powers vested in the Investigating Authorities, under Section 156(1) Cr.P.C. did not restrict the jurisdiction of the Investigating Agency to investigate into a complaint even if it did not have territorial jurisdiction to do so. Unlike as in other cases, it was for the Court to decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as and when the entire facts were placed before it."
15. Another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court published in 2006 (1) SCC 627 [Mohd. Yousuf Vs. Afaq Jahan (smt) and another] is cited by the revision petitioner, it is stated as follows:-
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 154 and http://www.judis.nic.in 10/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 156 (3) Cr.P.C. - FIR - held, registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station - Further held, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register an FIR when investigation under Section 156(3) is directed by the Magistrate, even when the Magistrate explicitly does not say so."
16. On the side of the respondents 2 to 6, it is stated that before filing the private complaint, the petitioner must have approached the first respondent or the Superintendent of Police under Sections 153 and 154 Cr.P.C and the private complaint was not accompanied with an affidavit. It is further stated that already a case was registered before the Salem Police and investigation is pending and that the first respondent is not having jurisdiction to investigate this case. No cause of action arose in that area. Hence, the Inspector of Police, CCB, Madurai has closed the complaint. The petitioner is having alternative remedy to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr,P.C and prayed the petition to be dismissed.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6 relied on the Judgment of this Court in the case of G.Prabakaran Vs. Superintendent of http://www.judis.nic.in 11/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 Police (DB) published in 2019(1) MWN Criminal 53 (DB) is cited, where in this Court has decided that a petition under Section 156(3) is to be accompanied by an affidavit.
18. Another judgment of this Court published in 2019 (3) MWN (Criminal) 194 [N.Amsaveni Vs. R.Loganathan] is cited by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 6, wherein, it is stated that Petition seeking direction to register F.I.R under Section 156 (3) must be accompanied by a sworn affidavit of the complainant as mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and directing the investigation by Police under Section 156(3) is liable to be set aside.
19. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on records.
20. A perusal of the records reveals that the Head office of the Trust was situated in Madurai. Section 154 and 156(3) clearly narrates that it is the duty of the respondent police to register an F.I.R. If there is no jurisdiction, the respondent police has to transfer the F.I.R. to the concerned Police Station. The first respondent cannot file a report objecting to register an F.I.R. In http://www.judis.nic.in 12/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 view of the above fact, the first respondent is directed to register an F.I.R. immediately, if the first respondent is not having jurisdiction, they can forward the F.I.R to the Salem City Crime Branch.
21.With the above direction, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order, dated 01.08.2019, in Cr.M.P.No.3204/2019 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, is hereby set aside.
03.09.2020 Ls NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13/14 Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020 R.THARANI, J.
Ls To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai,
2..The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai City, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Crl. R.C.(MD)No.33 of 2020
03.09.2020 http://www.judis.nic.in 14/14